Nike Zoom Vapor 9 Tour VERY disapppointed in quality.

Exactly......plus any lightweight shoe is going to be less durable.period. You have to weigh the options between lightweight performance vs durability.

Click to expand...

I don't think one should generalize in all instances though...even though i "generally agree that heavier is more durable"
For example: Adidas barricade "team" shoes, will be much more durable if they had a little rubber on top of the toes. A Nike Vapor shoe, may be more durable in this area, than a so called durable Barricade 6 or 7.

Most of my critical wear and tear(holes) is at the tip of my shoe, as well as at the top of the toes.

If it were not for the lack of protection of adidas on their more recent shoes, i would have instantly got barricades again....

As for the OP: The barracade 6's would have been perfect for his problem area - solid rubber protection there....

With all due respect, what a whiner! If you don't like the quality of the shoes, simply change to Wilson or New Balance - much better shoes than Nike who every serious player knows makes a mediocre shoe.

These Vapors look flashy but they do not look aerodynamic or functional. They only sell because Federer wears them. Pretty sure Fed's Vapors or modified too. Try the NB 1187, helluva shoe.

Seeing as I just wasted my time reading that I'll troll some more. Vapor = gas. gas disperses quickly. vapor 9 wears very quickly. Regardless, normal wear and tear isn't associated with that part of the shoe.....although court ballistec 4.3s have you covered. I'd suggest buying 4.3s or improve your footwork. Don't drag your feet around like a sloth. Light and on the balls of your feet.

I agree 100% with the original poster, which is why I stocked up on Vapor 8 before they disappeared. Quality was much better with Vapor 8, as soon as I picked up Vapor 9 it was apparent. Definitely valid criticism

Hello everyone sorry the typo with the word disappointed in the heading.

I purchased the Nike Zoom Vapor 9 Tour Limited Edition shoe (White & Red sole) for $130 plus tax and of course shipping.....boy am I disappointed now less than 2 months of ownership. You know that feeling like you have just had your wallet pick pocketed by a con job. This is how I feel unfortunately today. :cry:

I can't begin to explain the care I have taken to keep my Nike Zoom Vapor 9 in tip top condition and looking white after each and every match I clean them carefully, which is only twice a week playing mild indoors sessions. I use a Tide stick to remove any black marks and then a paper towel to wipe clean so they look almost new....I do this every time and I'm not a hard core player with heavy feet.

During play I carefully make sure not to drag hard my left shoe if I need to get a low volley etc. But shoe dragging is a good form in tennis so why make a TOUR shoe that can't stand up to even brief mild shoe dragging. Seriously?????

To my dismay, the mesh on the shoe now has some holes and in some spots melting (mesh material seems like it's a plastic/fabric hybrid), I knew this was going to be a problem. Nike should have extended the toe drag barrier further to the side of the shoe but instead decided to leave it with mesh. This design was NO accident Nike knew what they were doing because they realized that people would wear these shoes out in less than a month or two and just go buy a few more pairs at $130 per pair.

Nike's City Court VII WIDE Men's shoe sells for $55 almost 1/3 less and will last 3 times much longer than the Zoom Vapor 9 Zoom that cost $130+.

As a Nike customer, I feel that I am being tricked by a corporation that wants to sell me what seems to "look" like an expensive shoe but is really cheap constructed shoe materials. The tongue on the inside looks like someone with scissors cut the sides exposing the yellow foaming.....cheap!! The mesh lasts as long as a Kleenex.
Nike is no longer interested in making a value and quality product in a shoe which is a path or road that's leading to destroying a great company. People are stupid like myself and bought the hype of the best shoe ever....not even close. I'm going to boycott Nike Vapor shoes until this problem is fixed.

The mesh on the shoe is probably a little thicker than that of a two ply paper towel,,.(okay joking but pretty close). The mesh is so so cheap Nike should me embarrassed they even made these shoes and advertised them as the Roger Federer's tournament shoe....that's insulting.

The shoe does offer lightness/looks and comfort but I need it to last one season minimum especially for my occasional playing on hard court they did cost $130! This could have been avoided if their toe guard was properly designed but someone higher up the corporate ladder knew people would buy more shoes if we make them fall apart after a few months use.

Here below are a few new pics of my complaints which clearly show the beginning stages of mesh shredding and a little bit of the (drag on) toe wearing down. It is so easy to burn a whole through these shoes in just one practice session with that mesh if you're not careful.

The bottom line is for the money these shoes should be MUCH better quality. They should fire the person who said lets put MESH on a tennis shoe so that they wear out in a month and have customers buy more shoes. Even La Ning can make a better shoe that will last longer.....seriously c'mon Nike stop being so CHEAP!!!!

I don't recommend these shoes at all unless you are absolutely in love and have ordered 7 pairs to make it past one season. I now have to take my shoes to a shoe repair shop and see if they can stitch real white leather in those spots that are exposed mesh holes near the sole. The mesh is going to wear out very, very quickly no matter how careful you play. I'm a 4.5 player with good technique and hardly drag but do have to tilt my left foot for obvious low volley shots or slices etc. This shoe does not measure up to the hype in terms of quality.

These are pictures of my left shoe, I'm a right handed player.

Click to expand...

Get the Yonex 308 shoes or Asics Resolution. Both are on sale. Great quality, comfort and durability. For me Nike is like Babolat, all propaganda, and marketing but limited substance and quality.

I have 2 pair of Vapor 9s and they are incredible quality. I rotate mine so I can get more time out of them.

Click to expand...

Shoes don't rest though. Rotating shoes does not mean they last longer. It merely means two pairs share the same workload over the same period of time.
One doesn't get more time out of your shoes by rotating them...it is rather that their time on court is halved. It is like having two rackets instead of one...strings last just as long on one racket than on two, except that with two rackets, its more convenient having to string it much later and it feels as if they last longer.

This is not saying I dislike the idea of rotation though...I'm considering getting 2-3 pairs of more affordable shoes and rotating them - instead of just 1 pair of vapors or barracades.

Shoes don't rest though. Rotating shoes does not mean they last longer. It merely means two pairs share the same workload over the same period of time.
One doesn't get more time out of your shoes by rotating them...it is rather that their time on court is halved. It is like having two rackets instead of one...strings last just as long on one racket than on two, except that with two rackets, its more convenient having to string it much later and it feels as if they last longer.

This is not saying I dislike the idea of rotation though...I'm considering getting 2-3 pairs of more affordable shoes and rotating them - instead of just 1 pair of vapors or barracades.

Shoes don't rest though. Rotating shoes does not mean they last longer. It merely means two pairs share the same workload over the same period of time.
One doesn't get more time out of your shoes by rotating them...it is rather that their time on court is halved. It is like having two rackets instead of one...strings last just as long on one racket than on two, except that with two rackets, its more convenient having to string it much later and it feels as if they last longer.

This is not saying I dislike the idea of rotation though...I'm considering getting 2-3 pairs of more affordable shoes and rotating them - instead of just 1 pair of vapors or barracades.

Click to expand...

If I have 1 pair of shoes that lasts for 3 months, and that is all I wore. If I half the amount of time put into those same shoes by alternating in another pair I can go for 6 months without worrying about shoes.

Of course as you said, the $$ is still the same - but there are advantages. the main one is the summer heat and sweat..wearing sweaty shoes that did not full dry out is pretty awful, and that is themain reason I do it.

The other reason is if one pair blows out, I'm not totally screwed.

The third is that I can use an older pair of shoes that did not blow out, but did have some good use, and designate them for clay only. Doing all those things has really helped me prolong my shoe life even though the cost is about the same. Its just a far better experience. So my main point is that I always budget for 2 pairs of shoes at the same time, play a ton of tennis, and still only have to buy twice a year on average.

If I have 1 pair of shoes that lasts for 3 months, and that is all I wore. If I half the amount of time put into those same shoes by alternating in another pair I can go for 6 months without worrying about shoes.

Of course as you said, the $$ is still the same - but there are advantages. the main one is the summer heat and sweat..wearing sweaty shoes that did not full dry out is pretty awful, and that is themain reason I do it.

The other reason is if one pair blows out, I'm not totally screwed.

The third is that I can use an older pair of shoes that did not blow out, but did have some good use, and designate them for clay only. Doing all those things has really helped me prolong my shoe life even though the cost is about the same. Its just a far better experience. So my main point is that I always budget for 2 pairs of shoes at the same time, play a ton of tennis, and still only have to buy twice a year on average.

Click to expand...

Makes sense

I wish we had clay in my country....I played on it in Czech once...awesome for me and I could immediately adapt....would probably suit my game the most...

It is less demanding on shoes also right?

EDIT: ps. You probably play twice as much tennis as me then. The best shoes last me a year or so for one pair.

buying vapor 9s @130 is kind of like owning a masterati. if you are worried about how long it can last, you prob shouldn't own it.

Click to expand...

This is a poor excuse of reverse psychology though. "The shoe is faster, so it has an excuse to wear down?" "It is very durable, so it does not need to be comfortable?" - lame excuses. It seems as if companies are sometimes abusing this...If this was not the case, newer models would actually always improve, and not get worse.

This is a poor excuse of reverse psychology though. "The shoe is faster, so it has an excuse to wear down?" "It is very durable, so it does not need to be comfortable?" - lame excuses. It seems as if companies are sometimes abusing this...If this was not the case, newer models would actually always improve, and not get worse.

Click to expand...

Life is short and some of us choose to enjoy life and buy a pair of shoes for 130 (I can't afford that).

Look on the positive side, if you enjoyed it and it worked well for your game, then Nike has done its job.

130 is still cheap in a sense that you can't make a shoe like that starting from scratch (design, mold, test, finish).

This is a poor excuse of reverse psychology though. "The shoe is faster, so it has an excuse to wear down?" "It is very durable, so it does not need to be comfortable?" - lame excuses. It seems as if companies are sometimes abusing this...If this was not the case, newer models would actually always improve, and not get worse.

Click to expand...

Durability requires denser and thicker rubber compounds which are naturally heavier. It also requires thicker and better reinforced materials for uppers which are also heavier. Thus, you can't make a shoe that has maximum durability while having minimum weight at the same time. That would be like making a sports car with a 6.0 liter V-12 engine that has 600HP but still gets better gas mileage than a Prius. You can't have both.

Durability requires denser and thicker rubber compounds which are naturally heavier. It also requires thicker and better reinforced materials for uppers which are also heavier. Thus, you can't make a shoe that has maximum durability while having minimum weight at the same time. That would be like making a sports car with a 6.0 liter V-12 engine that has 600HP but still gets better gas mileage than a Prius. You can't have both.

Click to expand...

Of course you can. Aluminium and Carbon Fibre is stronger, yet lighter? What I'm speaking of are not large changes, and also not extreme users with odd wear and tear places like the OP.

For example:
The B7's has taken off some of the unneeded protection off the top of the shoe...parts where no protection is needed - a lighter shoe as a result. Still just as durable it seems than the B6.
But nothing prevented them from extending the toe part on the barracade TEAM shoes 5mm higher. It would not have made a weight difference and it would have increased durability A LOT. But if they did this, no one would buy the more expensive barracades.

What I'm speaking of, is that it is easier to sell more shoes if they wear out quicker. Nike's reputation is just good enough for them to get away with it.
Does the CB 4.3 sole have more durability than the B7's? I doubt it...people should ask themselves why.
I have seen the same occur with New Balance.
At my club, they had the best reputation at one time. Very good durability and good value. They probably lasted too long...because the series that followed, was one of the worst shoes I've ever seen. At least three members switched to either nike or adidas since then.

Point is: There are strategic elements in place to fool buyers. Because there is nothing better around, I am forced as well to fall for their tricks. They have a monopoly, and can do as they please.

I wouldn't totally disagree with this. At the end of the day though, most tennis shoes take a lot of abuse, and the good ones are ~ $100 on average.

The Vapor 9s feel so incredible on the feet, and are so supportive for being so light that it is worth it to me. They really are luxury tennis shoes, and as we know many luxury items have their drawbacks in terms of maintenance and other things.

You just have to decide if it is worth it, but I have made the move to light shoes like the Solutions and Vapors and am really happy.

I had the same issue on my Indian Wells colorway Vapors this spring. I sent them back to Nike and they gave me a voucher for a replacement pair. First time I've ever had this problem with NIke but to their credit, they made it right.

The SL version shouldn't have that happen since they're made of syn leather.

Hi I bought mine in April 2012 and had exactly the same problem.
I contacted Nike as I purchased from the Nike store on line, they agreed after sending pictures that this was not acceptable given the obvious light use {shown by the lack of wear on the sole}. They sent me a return label and agreed to credit in full, so maybe contact them.

With all due respect, what a whiner! If you don't like the quality of the shoes, simply change to Wilson or New Balance - much better shoes than Nike who every serious player knows makes a mediocre shoe.

These Vapors look flashy but they do not look aerodynamic or functional. They only sell because Federer wears them. Pretty sure Fed's Vapors or modified too. Try the NB 1187, helluva shoe.

Click to expand...

Further to my other post, Nike tell me this is possibly part of a faulty batch and that it was not acceptable quality for this to happen after 9 months so maybe the OP isn't a whiner after all

Of course you can. Aluminium and Carbon Fibre is stronger, yet lighter? What I'm speaking of are not large changes, and also not extreme users with odd wear and tear places like the OP.

For example:
The B7's has taken off some of the unneeded protection off the top of the shoe...parts where no protection is needed - a lighter shoe as a result. Still just as durable it seems than the B6.
But nothing prevented them from extending the toe part on the barracade TEAM shoes 5mm higher. It would not have made a weight difference and it would have increased durability A LOT. But if they did this, no one would buy the more expensive barracades.

What I'm speaking of, is that it is easier to sell more shoes if they wear out quicker. Nike's reputation is just good enough for them to get away with it.
Does the CB 4.3 sole have more durability than the B7's? I doubt it...people should ask themselves why.
I have seen the same occur with New Balance.
At my club, they had the best reputation at one time. Very good durability and good value. They probably lasted too long...because the series that followed, was one of the worst shoes I've ever seen. At least three members switched to either nike or adidas since then.

Point is: There are strategic elements in place to fool buyers. Because there is nothing better around, I am forced as well to fall for their tricks. They have a monopoly, and can do as they please.

Click to expand...

OK, you are obviously not an engineer. Durability has to do with the density and thickness of the materials used. Denser and thicker materials weigh more than more porous and thinner materials do.

And no, Nike does not have a monopoly on tennis shoes. Heck, TW alone sells 15 different brands of tennis shoes. Nobody needs to buy Nike tennis shoes. If Nike were a monopoly, the ONLY choice in tennis shoes would be Nike.

OK, you are obviously not an engineer. Durability has to do with the density and thickness of the materials used. Denser and thicker materials weigh more than more porous and thinner materials do.

And no, Nike does not have a monopoly on tennis shoes. Heck, TW alone sells 15 different brands of tennis shoes. Nobody needs to buy Nike tennis shoes. If Nike were a monopoly, the ONLY choice in tennis shoes would be Nike.

Click to expand...

yeh its not even close to a monopoly or even an oligopoly i dont think he knows what he is saying!:-?

During Wimbledon, the ESPN crew were commenting that Federer wore size 12 with insoles but had especially wide feet. As far as I know, the Vapor 9 only comes in "medium" widths?

Click to expand...

Fed shoes might be fully customized so His shoes might be completely different than retail shoes. Probably better materials especially outsole.
Nike can make any shoes which fed wants.
BTW you can get wide fit vapor 9 from nikeid (extra $$$).

OK, you are obviously not an engineer. Durability has to do with the density and thickness of the materials used. Denser and thicker materials weigh more than more porous and thinner materials do.

And no, Nike does not have a monopoly on tennis shoes. Heck, TW alone sells 15 different brands of tennis shoes. Nobody needs to buy Nike tennis shoes. If Nike were a monopoly, the ONLY choice in tennis shoes would be Nike.

Not might be, they are. 100% fact - there are stacks of differences in his shoes to the retail shoe including being very broad across the forefoot.

Click to expand...

I agree that it could be 100% so I should not use "Might not" but you can't be 100% sure because you are not fed. There is a very tiny little chance of 0.0000001%. Who knows fed wore retail version shoes for just one match which nobody knows about it or fed used prototypes which were same as retail versions.

When I make a statement that it is not 100%, I prefer to use "might" so I can make a room for my excuse.

I agree that it could be 100% so I should not use "Might not" but you can't be 100% sure because you are not fed. There is a very tiny little chance of 0.0000001%. Who knows fed wore retail version shoes for just one match which nobody knows about it or fed used prototypes which were same as retail versions.

When I make a statement that it is not 100%, I prefer to use "might" so I can make a room for my excuse.

Click to expand...

I believe you meant to say: "There MIGHT be a very tiny little chance of 0.0000001%."

During Wimbledon, the ESPN crew were commenting that Federer wore size 12 with insoles but had especially wide feet. As far as I know, the Vapor 9 only comes in "medium" widths?

Click to expand...

Yes, the top guys go to Nike (or Nike goes to them) and have molds of their feet made. (Friend's sister married a guy who designs Nike Basketball shoes) So the sizes don't really apply - they're made for 1 person on the planet.

I've seen a pair of Fed's up close - a friend won one of the auctions off the RF's site (before the prices skyrocketed). His feet are so wide - never seen anything like it. I'm sure it's a contributor to his incredible balance.